=
D&D, if intended to be an improv game was possibly the worst design ever.
I don't know what you mean by "improv game". No one in this thread has used that phrase except you. I, and others, have said that D&D is a game that from time-to-time requires the GM to improvise in order to adjudicate action declarations by players.
Mutiple examples have been given upthread - a player declaring that his/her PC throws a mug to the ground so as to break it, making a loud bang; a player declaring that his/her PC jumps across a 10' wide pit; a player declaring that his/her PC uses a hammer and piton to smash a winch mechanism so that a portcullis comes crashing down so as to block off some on-rushing orcs.
These are all permissible action declarations in D&D, but the game, as published, does not have rules for resolving them. At best, in AD&D, for two of the three, there is some guidance to be taken from the item saving throw table.
D&D rolls result in predetermined outcomes
This is true for most RPGs. (Eg its true for many of the RPGs you denounce, like Burning Wheel.) But it is completely orthogonal to the point at issue.
The point at issue is: how is the list of predetermined outcomes determined? For instance, how do we know whether, in order to have his/her PC safely jump across a 10' wide pit, Morgan Ironwolf's player needs to roll a 5, a 10 or a 15 on the d20? The rulebooks don't tell us. The GM has to make something up. Many call this act of making something up "improvisation".
All of those people you quote believe in referring to "the fiction". That is what their games are meant to do. Create fictions. There is no fiction in D&D. Games don't create fictions.
They do not use the word "fiction" in the same way that you do. You use "fiction" as a synonym for "story". They use "fiction" as a synonym for "imagined state of affairs". "Story" and "imagined state of affairs" are not synonyms.
Proof by way of thought experiment requires imagined states of affairs (eg infiinitely long train tracks with a train rushing along them at half the speed of light and an infinitely long mirror beside them). Proof by way of thought experiment does not require, and typically does not generate, story.
Playing D&D requires imagined states of affairs - the characters, the dungeon, the 10' wide pit, the portcullis, the winch mechanism, the mug - all are imaginary.
Here is an example from p 96 of Gygax's DMG:
EMPTY CEREMONIAL CHAMBER: This large place appears to be a dead end. . . [T]he vaulted ceiling dome here is fully 25' high. . . . A wooden platform . . . was placed against the south wall. . . . The only clue which still remains are socket holes in the south wall. . . . The first socket hole examined by the party will have several splinters of wood (from the platform, of course) which might prove to be another clue to thinking players.
Notice that the room, the platform, the splinters of wood, etc
have never actually existed. They are imaginary. And "thinking players" are expected to perform inferences taking the imaginary state of affairs as a starting point: for instance, they are expected to infer from the imagined existence of splinters of wood in wall sockets to the imagined existence, in an imagined past, of a wooden platform against that wall.
As a side point, I also note that there is an element here of improvisation (or "Schroedinger's wood spinters") - whichever socket is the first to be examined will contain the splinters. That is, the GM is authoring the imagined state of affairs, within certain rather constrained paramaters, as s/he goes along.
A DM's map includes everything in the game. If there is a pit, jumping, mail armor, Morgan Ironwolf, smashing, hammers, pitons, winches, etc. They are on that map. They are rule designs referred to by the referee.
This is not anything like a standard usage of the word "map". For instance, I challenge you to post a photograph or link me to any RPGing map which contains
pitons on it. Pitons figure on equipment lists - both generic lists of things that can be bought, and particularised lists on individual character sheets. They do not figure on maps.
Even moreso is this the case for mugs, which typically figure only as part of the flavour text in GM dungeon/room notes.
No RPG has action resolution.
<snip>
Game play is the act of deciphering patterns. There are no conflicts between players to resolve.
I don't see what
conflicts have to do with anything. Action resolution mechanics are mechanics for resolving (= "
determining the outcome of") player action declarations.
Gygax, in his DMG, refers repreatedly to the need to determine such things (ie to resolve them): see, for instance, p 61: "Determine if either or both paties are SURPRISED . . . Determine
distance . . . Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon", etc.
It's also simply not true that all game play is the act of deciphering patterns. For instance, when a player declares thats/he has rolled a 6 on the initiative die, what pattern is being deciphered?
In any event, you still haven't told me how to resolve any of the contentious action declarations that have been mentioned (by me and others) upthread.
Here's another one:
Gygax's DMG tells me that "simming during winds above 35 miles per hour will be almost impossible, and there is a 75% chance of drowning" (page 55). What if the character in question has 18/50 STR, has found him-/herself in the water due to his/her ship breaking up in the storm, and declares that s/he holds onto a large piece of the ship's timber to help stay afloat? What is the chance to drown now? What if the storm lasts 1 further hour? Or 1 further day? And how is the GM to decide how long that the storm lasts, anyway? (There are no random weather tables in the DMG.)